Is it good or bad for the game if the Canadas, Hollands or Irelands of the world defeat Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Kenya?

Especially with regards to Bangladesh.

Given that the former are part of the world cricket "family", I'd view it as a positive if for no other reasons than it justifies their inclusion in major events and encourages further development of the game in those countries.

I think it'd do cricket more harm than good if bangladesh/zimbabwe manages to lose to holland or canada. Any other team, i'd say sure- it'd do cricket a whole lot of good in those nations if they beat a decent team.

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.

If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.

Couldn't have said it better myself. BTW, did this question pop up after the near defeat of Bangladesh at the hands of Canada?

If the country in question has a decent domestic structure and produces a high number of home grown players (eg Scotland, Netherlands, Ireland, Bermuda) then it is a very good thing for the growth and global strength of the game.

If the counrty is made up of ex-pat players and have issues producing domestic players (eg Canada and the USA in the Champions Trophy) then it is a negative thing that does little to reward nations for investing in doomestic structures.

Agreed, although it may not be a huge scale victory due to the opposition, it will surely show a sign that these nations are delevoping quickly - although Ireland seem to have a few players from other countries qualifying through residency.

I think Holland could well develop into a strong ODI side, with players like RTD, Van Bunge etc. It's nice to see that there is talent coming through from the Netherlands, and I'm sure that if money was invested into improving grass roots/domestic structure they can really kick on.

It would be a slap in the ICC's face if Bangladesh come unstuck against Bermuda, but that clearly will not happen. Obviously the theory that playing the strongest nations will help them grow as a cricketing nation will be proved to be so much cant if, by some miracle, they actually did contrive to lose. It'd be bad news for the ICC, but good news for cricket's pretensions of spreading the gospel outside the traditional countries.

Zimbabwe are really only a test nation in name now & Kenya have had their own issues too. Of all the possible upsets Ireland turning Zimabawe over would've looked the most likely before the World League, but yer Micks hardly covered themselves with glory. Canada have a puncher's chance aganist Kenya, but as Goughy & others observe, their squad's make up is primarily ex-pats. There are only three native-born Canucks &, of those, Davison & Billcliff were Australasian-raised, leaving Kevin Sandher as the sole real McCoy born-and-raised Canadian.

This being so, I do wonder how they're allowed to get away with it. I thought after the UAE's team in 1996 regulations were introduced to make sure teams had to have a certain number of local players?

Well, really, it depends if having a higher number of elite teams is better for cricket, or having a higher overall number of somewhat competitive teams is better for cricket.

Personally, I'd much rather see Bangladesh make themselves test quality and justify thier status than have another almost-there-but-not-quite Bangladesh-esque team that the other teams can batter around regularly.

But really, I don't see one victory doing a great deal in either case - only domestic competition growth will do that.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.